SEC commissars have new way of stoking resentment among the worker class
We are drowning in a sea of inequality. Everywhere I look, I see people earning either more or less than I do, but almost never the exact same amount. How can this be tolerated? At last, the SEC is coming to the rescue: stoking resentment of high-earning corporate officers.
The SEC used to be about rooting out corporate fraud and malfeasance, but no more! Now it's all about equality:
The chief executive of General Electric raked in a $37.3 million pay package last year, a large sum by any standard.
And by the way, Bill and Hillary Clinton earned $28 million in 2014, also a large sum by any standard.
After a long delay and plenty of resistance from corporations, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved in a 3-to-2 vote on Wednesday a rule that would require most public companies to regularly reveal the ratio of the chief executive’s pay to that of the average employee.
Representatives of corporations were quick to assail the new rule, which will start to take effect in 2017, saying that it was misleading, costly to put into practice and intended to shame companies into paying executives less.
Why is it the mission or the business of the SEC to require this? The mission of the SEC has nothing to do with economic equality.
Fifty years ago, chief executives were paid roughly 20 times as much as their employees, compared with nearly 300 times in 2013, according to an analysis last year by the Economic Policy Institute.
Maybe with companies getting larger, and advances in technology, smart CEOs can produce way more value than they could 50 years ago. A smart decision at the top of Google can make far more money than a smart decision at a tractor company 50 years ago.
People choose to work at companies based on whether the pay is worth it to them, not based on the ratio of the CEO's salary to their own. As for shareholders, they are entitled to know facts about the performance of the company and costs, but typically CEO compensation is a tiny percentage of review.
This is not about policing public companies, but it is all about stoking class resentment. If we're going to do this, though, why can't we also do it with politicians? I think we need to know the ratio between the income of our senators and congressmen and the salaries of their lowest-level employees answering the phones in their district offices, don't you? And when I mean "income," I mean all income, not just their government salaries. Would you be surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton's total income as a senator was 50 or 100 times that of her junior staffers? I wouldn't!
And then, for the purposes of disclosure, I also want to know the net worth of politicians. Right now they have to give only a broad "net worth range." I think we need to know exact numbers.
But of course, the one rich, privileged class who will never be the subject of disclosure is our political class. They're the ones who want to whip up and unleash the angry mobs on the corporate world, not on themselves.
This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.